President Obama and Afghanistan: Speech Critiques

[jammonius]

Al Qaeda is a small player in Afghanistan at this point. The current Taliban insurgency a tribal/nationalist war against what they see as a foreign occupation propped up by their northern ethnic rivals.

Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan for a "base" and never did. A few rooms in Hamburg or London is enough from which to launch terror attacks.

Ever seen what those much-feared "Al Qaeda training camps" actually look like? Ever seen their training videos? Their camps are no different than the kind of militia bases you find in any war zone: guys practice shooting, bomb-making, planting IEDs, staging ambushes etc. There are no flight simulators in these camps, or anything else that was crucial for 9/11 to happen - for that they came (legally) to the US.

In choosing to quote former President Eisenhower in his speech, President Obama added insult to injury by NOT quoting Eisenhower's "military-industrial-complex" (MIC) warning. That is the quote from Eisenhower that should have been relied upon forpurposes of terminating, not escalating, the warring in Afghanistan.

As noted above, the "threat" posed by the interchangeable factions knwon as "the Taliban" and "al Qaeda" are small, amorphous and not at all impacted by $30billion of annual military expenditure. On the otherhand, however, the MIC has a strong desire to extend and expand existing wars and then always have new ones brewing to protect their interests. Indeed, did any of you happen to catch the pfropaganda on CNBC just yesterday drumming up militarism against Iran because "Iran has nuclear weapons" and "Iran is our enemy"?

Obama had caved in to the MIC on Afghanistan a mere 1 day earlier. The MIC's appetite for warring is clearly insatiable as evidenced by the drum beat against Iran the very next day.

The issue here, imho, is the MIC and the interests thereof.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What is the exit strategy of this thread?

Victory! (Whatever the heck that means).

Should it depend on what is accomplished by the replies?

Curious use of the term "accomplished" there.

I say if we resolve the issue in 18 replies we stop this subject, otherwise we keep going for as long as it takes!

Who died and made you Caliph?

 

[Cynic]

I dunno. After it turned into the Piggy & Darth show I forgot what the subject was.

One of the blog sites I started frequenting during the last election cycle and sort of never stopped has a little thing on the plotical implications of Obama's plan. I like 538 because while there's an undeniable left-leaning "attitude" there, their insistance on statistical analysis and full disclosure goes a long way toward avoiding actual bias.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/speech-isnt-story.html

The gist of the entry is wondering at the intentions of the plan, if he's putting the withdrawl timeline just to appease liberals or what. The thought process ultimately lends credibility to Obama, IMO, because if he makes this "promise" and reality prevents it he looks worse than if he never made that promise in the first place. The article suggested that might indicate that announcing this kind of plan might be politically short-sighted, but my read on Obama is that he's a fairly sincere guy, willing to state his real intentions and take the lumps if he has to back out of it.

 

[BeAChooser]

my read on Obama is that he's a fairly sincere guy, willing to state his real intentions and take the lumps if he has to back out of it.

LOL!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I read it once. I responded. You gave no evidence of reading my entire response, part of which included my agreement with you on a couple of ponts? Indeed, you gave evidence of going off in a snit about two paragraphs in. [blah blah blah]

DR

I find the progressives' criticism of the speech disappointing. On the one hand the mess that made the whole situation worse occurred because we funded/supported the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan then just pulled out when the Soviets left. The Taliban took over after that. So how can just pulling out be the right answer this time?

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin.

Clearly this answer shows you didn't read what I wrote but made up in your mind what I said based on your imagination. So now you gripe that I pointed out your mis-read by whining it wasn't a big deal. Nice.

I agree with Stephanie Miller's comment tonight after the speech, as a liberal I am against war in general but as a woman I am against the Taliban. There was a struggle to free the oppressed women in Afghanistan long before 911 and I for one have not forgotten that. The Taliban's treatment of women cannot be allowed to resume.

I hear an echo of Hillary Clinton, mid 1990's. From what you wrote there, you feel we should spend our blood and treasure on women's liberation, world wide. Is that your preferred expenditure of our blood and treasure, cultural imperialism? Where changes have come, the world over, in the status of women, it has not generally come at the point of American bayonets. The change comes from exposure to more modern social models, and from within the society in question.

It would appear you are totally unaware of the struggle against the Taliban's treatment of women that began years before 9-11-01.

Journalist Saira Shah: Life in Afghanistan under the Taliban

Aug 27, 2001
Saira Shah is a freelance journalist. She was born in Britain, of an Afghan family. She first visited Afghanistan at age 21 and worked there three years as a freelance journalist, covering the guerilla war against the Soviet occupiers. Later, working for Britain's Channel Four News, she covered some of the world's worst trouble spots.

CNN: Saira - tell us a bit about "Beneath the Veil" on CNN Presents this Sunday evening and why this story is so important to you.

SHAH: Well, the film is a story of a journey three of us made, me and two crew members, earlier in the year. It's important to me personally, because my family originally came from Afghanistan. What we tried to do was return to the area where my family came from, which I'd never seen before. I remember when I was a child, my father would tell me stories of a garden in the area where my family came from, and I was told it was the most beautiful place in the world, with fountains, fruit trees, and wonderful things. We thought we'd try to go there, and see what happened to it now, and understand along the way what's happening in Afghanistan.

Inside Afghanistan: Behind the veil

June 27, 2001
An undercover documentary film about the Taleban movement in Afghanistan has shown shocking footage of mass executions, and an insight into the oppression suffered by Afghan women.

Dressed in an Afghan veil, reporter Saira Shah used a hidden camera to film life for ordinary Afghans under the Taleban.

Inside Afghanistan: Behind the veil A summary of what's in the film.

Mavis Leno: Lives of Afghan women

Mavis Leno has been chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan since 1997. The wife of "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno, she has been a longtime outspoken critic of Taliban treatment of women. She currently is leading the effort to insure the restoration of women's rights in a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Hollywood's Latest Cause

December 6, 1999
Afghanistan has become Hollywood's latest cause; Meryl Streep, Geena Davis, Sidney Poitier and Melissa Etheridge have all signed on. "Seventh Heaven" and "Family Law" recently devoted episodes to the issue. Building on the publicity generated by its celebrity supporters, the Feminist Majority has blanketed the White House and the State Department with 100,000 petitions, letters, e-mails and faxes.

Their demands: that the United States cut off aid to countries that recognize the Taliban, increase humanitarian assistance to Afghan women and fling open its doors to female Afghan refugees. "To have Leno and other celebrities involved in this cause makes a big difference," says Mary Diaz, director of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, a New York-based advocacy group.

Wiki: Taliban treatment of women

Women were forced to wear the burqa in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them.[3] They were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools such as the Golden Needle Sewing School, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.[4][5] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging[6] and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[7][8] The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Amnesty International reported that 80 percent of Afghan marriages were considered to be by force.[9]

Obama's description of what makes this country great and what America really stands for, reflects my view of the world and what I wish this country actually did stand for. Unfortunately for that part of the speech, I found it full of untruths. Claiming we've never taken other countries' natural resources for ourselves was a lie. We've done it over and over. The US and Britain literally split the MidEast regions' oil resources between themselves in the 50s and that is where a lot of 'blowback' is coming from to this day.

If I may refer to Donald Sutherland (Odball) in Kelley's Heroes, we see here another case of "always with the negative waves, Moriarty." Your hair shirt is on order.

So you believe in the John Wayne fairly tale version of the US' history then?

But if Obama goes forward with that idealistic philosophy, that Americans are like John Wayne's portrayal of us in the old war movies, then I'm OK with the speech even knowing it was not true about us in the past. Afterall, if Obama would have spoken the truth the conservatives would have had way more than a cow about it. We'd of never heard the end that it was a blame America speech.

I am trying to grasp what value the American President accrues when he blames America, or dwells on our mistakes. Why do you choose to dwell on them?

Because I noted Obama included a false history of the US's involvement in other countries' affairs in this speech we are all discussing, I'm somehow dwelling on it?

On another note, Cheney is insane. I think he may really be off his nut. Very disgusting crap came from him over the last few weeks. He needs to admit he screwed up or shut up.

This thread isn't about Dick Cheney. It is about what President Obama is doing, where he wants to go with this challenge based on what he told America and the world last night.

DR

Well I chose to comment on Cheney whose been shooting his mouth off about Obama's Afghanistan measures. So sue me.

 

[Piggy]

What is the exit strategy of this thread? Do we go on for 18 more replies and then quit? Should it depend on what is accomplished by the replies?

I say if we resolve the issue in 18 replies we stop this subject, otherwise we keep going for as long as it takes!

DD (did I leave enough “outs”?)WW

We keep going until Christmas unless the situation in the database dictates otherwise.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It would appear you are totally unaware of the struggle against the Taliban's treatment of women that began years before 9-11-01.

No, I am very aware of it, and if you'd have bothered to read that bit in my post about the mid-late 90's policy of the US in re women's rights in Muslim nations (not just in Afghanistan, the issues arose in re Saudi and the Emirates as well) you'd have grasped that I was aware of how that was playing politically. My question to you returns: do you believe that we should spend our blood and treasure on that policy aim of women's rights? You might be comfortable with that policy aim gaining primacy. There are plenty of people who might be sympathetic to that evolution in US policy. Risks include the local impact of backlash, and charges of cultural imperialism. Put another way, should we impose democracy at the point of a bayonet? Should we impose equal rights at the point of a bayonet?

If you look at point two in President Obama's summary, there is to be a civilian surge. He was short on the details. I missed the Sec Def and Sec State's interrogation by Congress the following evening, as they went forth to sell/support the President's policy and decision. I therefore don't have a good grip on what that civilian surge entails, but I do know that for the last eight years, the enrollment of women/girls in schools has increased, though it has gone down in areas where the Taliban has reasserted control lately.

So you believe in the John Wayne fairly tale version of the US' history then?

Grow up. I am a hard pragmatist.

Because I noted Obama included a false history of the US's involvement in other countries' affairs in this speech we are all discussing, I'm somehow dwelling on it?

Your dislike for that part of the speech and my "needs less filler" coincide for slightly different reasons: mine technical, yours emotional. He could have done without that.

Well I chose to comment on Cheney whose been shooting his mouth off about Obama's Afghanistan measures. So sue me.

This is about President Obama's speech, former VP Cheney's various utterances. Feel free to begin a thread on that.

DR

 

[IchabodPlain]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has already been brought up

Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Obama did leave some wiggle room in the 18mo. time-line by including the caveat that this was predicated on conditions on the ground.

Setting a time-line sends a message to the Karzi government and the Afghan people that no, we're not going to be there indefinitely. Essentially, "You've got 18 months to clean up this ****pile before we start getting outa here and you're on your own."

 

[Lissa]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

 

[tyr_13]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

Who are 'they' who have been at this for 4,000 years? Did you even read the rest of the thread?

 

[Cynic]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

(Rather conspicous number you've selected.)

How would you propose we slip out of Afghanistan overnight? Do you imagine the preparations for our leaving -- which would have to include warning the Afghani government and their reponse -- would somehow escape the Taliban's notice?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. ... snip ... Amateur hour at the White House.

*sigh* Ok, you offered a critique, but was this tripe necessary? I checked your profile.

Lissa has not made any friends yet

I don't expect that to change.

Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads.

The Taliban are probably aware of internal US conflict, and various criticism of the escalation strategy in Afghanistan. Continuing to pay for foreign wars is in conflict with other US policy aims, many of them domestic. So yes, they can now, and could two years ago when Bush was president, opt to play the long game in the hopes of the US eventually getting tired of the cost and trouble of that foreign involvement.

The "surge" strategy in a less cohesive place than Iraq probably has higher risks than it did in Iraq, and IMO, it is premature to call that surge anything more than a temporary success in Iraq.

Afghanistan has been an eocnomy of force since the spring of 2003. Taliban have taken advantage of that. It is about to become something far different. Can they adapt, since this time, Pakistan is now actively engaged in pressuring the Taliban (and other Islamists) in Pakistan? Don't know. Pakistan was always a safe haven in the Soviet era, but it is becoming far less so, which renders some of the "look what happened to the Russians" irrelevant at the strategic and practical level.

That is the single significant difference between the first six years and the last two to three: a far more robust cross border effort from Pakistan on the Taliban's "safe haven" that they could, as could Al Qaeda, retreat to when US pressure got to be too much in Afghanistan.

Is this effort going to be sufficient? Don't know. I suggest you revisit President Obama's points on how he intends to work with Pakistan on this. That kind of cooperation (like allowing cross border strikes by drones, and indeed, an increase in this manner of terrorist hunt and kill tactics) has been common since about mid-2008 -- it was absent for years from Pakistan.

However, it ain't all sun and roses, with Pakistan. India backs Karzai. This does not make Pakistan happy. No two ways about it, Karzai is part of the geo-strategic problem. So too is India. (Recent Economist article on Pakistan has a good treatment on the India/Pakistan tension influencing what goes on in Afghanistan). He may be a turd that cannot be polished.

No matter what his speech proclaimed, the challenge President Obama has in getting India and Pakistan to play well together is a key piece to any success in Afghanistan.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Anyone here ever heard of Bill Whittle? He's one of my favorite commentators, of a conservative bent. His latest is partly about Obama's Afghanistan speech/policy, for which he offers some criticism but mostly approval. But what he spends most of his time on is a few of Obama's high-profile supporters who don't seem thrilled by it, and he lays into them pretty harshly. Quite entertaining for me, though your mileage may vary:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2784

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I am very aware of it, and if you'd have bothered to read that bit in my post about the mid-late 90's policy of the US in re women's rights in Muslim nations (not just in Afghanistan, the issues arose in re Saudi and the Emirates as well) you'd have grasped that I was aware of how that was playing politically. My question to you returns: do you believe that we should spend our blood and treasure on that policy aim of women's rights? You might be comfortable with that policy aim gaining primacy. There are plenty of people who might be sympathetic to that evolution in US policy. Risks include the local impact of backlash, and charges of cultural imperialism. Put another way, should we impose democracy at the point of a bayonet? Should we impose equal rights at the point of a bayonet?

I'm not aware Hilary Clinton was ever involved directly in the movement to draw attention to the Taliban's treatment of women. Mavis Leno and the woman who made the documentary were on the forefront of bringing the cruelty to the world's attention. Like I said, your post suggests you were not aware of the specific movement before 9-11-01. If you were, you wouldn't have mentioned Clinton.

But more than that, the Taliban's treatment of women went waaaay beyond just the usual Muslim country travesty. In some countries you have specific problems like burning wives and throwing acid on women who are going to school. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, cruelty to women became their obsession. This was not a problem like all others as you seem to think.

...Grow up. I am a hard pragmatist.

This part of our exchange started with you making a false accusation that I was dwelling on some blame America tripe, when in fact I was commenting on a specific statement in Obama's speech. Why would you ignore a major historical influence like the long history of manipulating the natural resources of other countries? Don't you think it's a little bit foolish to think our history doesn't matter? Think the people in countries where we moved in and took the resources are going to brush it off as easily as you do?

I think it's important to start with the facts, not the fairy tale.

...Your dislike for that part of the speech and my "needs less filler" coincide for slightly different reasons: mine technical, yours emotional. He could have done without that. ...
DR

Get over yourself, my opinions are no more nor less emotionally based than yours. I find the claim in Obama's speech that the US has never taken the resources of another country to be factually wrong. It was the fact that the claim was wrong that I was commenting on.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

So did everyone with an axe to grind make the same mistake independently, or are they regurgitating the stupid-of-the-week off talk radio?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm not aware Hilary Clinton was ever involved directly in the movement to draw attention to the Taliban's treatment of women. Mavis Leno and the woman who made the documentary were on the forefront of bringing the cruelty to the world's attention. Like I said, your post suggests you were not aware of the specific movement before 9-11-01. If you were, you wouldn't have mentioned Clinton.

But more than that, the Taliban's treatment of women went waaaay beyond just the usual Muslim country travesty. In some countries you have specific problems like burning wives and throwing acid on women who are going to school. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, cruelty to women became their obsession. This was not a problem like all others as you seem to think.

Question, not answered. Are you okay with imposing what you think is correct morally at the edge of a bayonet?

Get over yourself, my opinions are no more nor less emotionally based than yours. I find the claim in Obama's speech that the US has never taken the resources of another country to be factually wrong. It was the fact that the claim was wrong that I was commenting on.

I dunno. An objection that Obama didn't acknowledge the truth is.. um.. sure, valid. But your way of saying it.. isn't.

 

[Peephole]

OK, your issue is with Karzai. You are making an assumption, that he'll be propped up indefinitely.

Why do you make this assumption? Any facts, or just more hyperbole?

DR

Because that's the strategy, keep the guy you like in place, because those you don't like are a possible threat. This is per definition an indefinite strategy, because the Taliban is a political movement that's not going to dissapear any time soon. There will always be the risk that they'll return to power, which in the U.S.'s mind necessitates keeping in power (with use of force if necessary) whoever opposes the Taliban.

 

[Peephole]

So you want to US to pull out?

I think the U.S.'s strategy should be limited to fighting Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

The Taliban should be negotiated with, or simply ignored.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Because that's the strategy, keep the guy you like in place, because those you don't like are a possible threat. This is per definition an indefinite strategy, because the Taliban is a political movement that's not going to dissapear any time soon. There will always be the risk that they'll return to power, which in the U.S.'s mind necessitates keeping in power (with use of force if necessary) whoever opposes the Taliban.

Then why did the US support the recent election, which of course (no surprise) went south? Obviously, there was a risk that Karzai would lose. Sorry, your CT isn't standing up too well.

DR

 

[Peephole]

Then why did the US support the recent election, which of course (no surprise) went south? Obviously, there was a risk that Karzai would lose. Sorry, your CT isn't standing up too well.

DR

What does that have to do with anything? Conspiracy theory? And you accuse me of using hyperbole?

The U.S. doesn't want the Taliban in power, some conspiracy theory.